Article in “Russia & India Report”: BRICS for a new world

by Samir Saran and Vivan Sharan
March 12th, 2011
Please find here the original article

The 4^th BRICS Academic Forum recently concluded in New Delhi. Over 60 delegates representing academic institutions, think tanks and expert community from the member countries participated in substantial debates that covered virtually every challenge and opportunity of contemporary times. The debates were intense, sometimes combative but almost always conducted among friends. This was the key takeaway from this meeting. The community is strong, it is aware of the differences, eager to resolve those and is comfortable with the irresolvables. The skeptics of BRICS for four years, would now need to rethink, this group has evolved, this group sees potential in greater and deeper engagement, and this group is capable of proposing bold and visionary ideas at the New Delhi Summit later this month and in the other interactions before and after.

This was not always the case and we only have to recall the early days of the relationship. To anyone witnessing one of the early Track 2 interactions on a cold day in Moscow in 2008, it would have seemed improbable that the grouping would come this far. There was early hesitance and unformed agendas among each of the experts gathered from the four countries (at that time BRIC). The Brazilian experts were unsure of their being there in the first place. A very prominent diplomat from Brazil saying, “why are we here, why do you need us, you are all neighbours and should talk amongst yourselves”. The Russians at that time, and who must be credited for the inception of the BRIC idea, saw in it a political opportunity to create a grouping of that could counter the Atlantic alliance and the Western economic and political weight. They were to be dissappointed, India and China were already deeply integrated with the US and EU in the arena of trade and economics and would not play ball. The experts from China liked the BRIC idea, which could be another instrument for projecting their growing pole position in world affairs and India was beginning to manage the nuances of diverse relationships in multi-polar world. It had also learnt from the SCO experience and this time it would not demur.

However, the early days of the conversations amongst experts and indeed among the policy makers from these countries lacked detail. This has changed, from the macro discussions on global governance, financial architecture, security and greater coordination, the discussions today focus on the substantive, on experince sharing, on creating institutions and linking up existing ones. In the fourth year of the BRICS (South Africa joined last year), the group has come of age. This is attested to by two facts. First, the experts from the four countries have signed an agreement to step up their interactions which till now have been sporadic and on the sidelines of the Leaders Summit and two, the wide ranging recommendations that the experts forum has submitted for the consideration of the Leaders at the summit in New Delhi demonstrate the limitless possibilities for the grouping.

The Forum’s recommendations to the 4^th BRICS Leaders Summit to be held in New Delhi on March 29^th are relevant and actionable. They are the result of intense discussions, debates and negotiations between the delegates on common challenges and opportunities faced by BRICS members, as they seek to set the global agendas for governance and development going forward. The theme for this year’s Academic Forum was “Stability, Security and Growth” – all common imperatives for the emerging and developing BRICS nations.

17 policy recommendations were carefully crafted by the Forum and are centred on key priorities for BRICS within the aegis of governance, socio-economic development, security and growth. The mandate of the Forum was to provide concrete policy alternatives to BRICS Leaders and to the credit of the delegates this year, the recommendations may have lived up to the mandate. The Forum deliberated context specific micro debates embedded within larger narratives. Varied and significant themes were addressed including the articulation of a common vision for the future; a framework to respond to regional and global crises; climate change and sustainable resource use; urbanization and its associated challenges; improving access to healthcare at all levels; scaling up and implementing new education and skilling initiatives; the conceptualization of financial mechanisms to support and drive economic growth; and finally sharing technologies, innovations and improving the cooperation across industrial sectors and geographies.

The Forum deliberated upon two distinct sets of engagement. One set of engagements is through research and initiatives that are “Intra-BRICS” in nature. These involve experience sharing across social policy, resource efficiency, poverty alleviation programmes, sustainable development ideas, innovation and growth. Each of these themes can be effectively mapped to help tailor policy within BRICS. The recommendations highlight the possibilities for enhancing such engagements through exchange of institutional experiences and processes, free flow of scholars and students, joint policy research, capacity and capability building for facilitating such interactions.

The second set of engagements and outcomes pertain to interaction of BRICS with other nations, external actors and groupings at various multi-lateral forums and institutions. These are reflected in the recommendations pertaining to climate policies, Rio +20, financial crisis management, traditional security threats, terrorism and other new threats and global challenges around health, IPR and development.

The Forum provided a valuable platform for exchange of perspectives between delegates without adhering to national positions or party loyalties. There were heated debates on issues such as the possible institutionalisation of a BRICS Development Bank and an Infrastructure Investment Fund that could assist in the development aspirations of the BRICS and other developing countries. The discussions on the setting up on new, credible institutions to initially supplement and eventually substitute existing financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF reflect the strong desire of BRICS to move ahead and away from the traditional development agendas of 20^th century institutions that are today incapable of empathising with some of the realities and aspirations of the 21^st century. This is perhaps a reflection on the way Bretton Woods Institutions are managed and governed and indeed to their legitimacy itself.

The recommendations reveal that BRICS view the sustainable development agenda through the lens of inclusive growth and equitable development primarily. The recommendations have also clarified that BRICS will continue to focus on achieving efficiency gains in resource use. Both these outcomes point towards resolute and far sighted policy guidance by the Forum. Climate change mitigation debates which have become a proxy for “Promoting Green Technology” and indeed are an outcome of “re-industrialisation policy” of some EU countries were conspicuous by their absence from the debates. Instead, with “plurality in prosperity” as a common ideal, the outcomes also signify that the research community within BRICS want the sustainability discourse to shift from one that emphasises common responsibility to one that emphasises common prosperity. This means that BRICS must attempt to reorient consumption patterns and energy use globally, towards sustainable trajectories. The BRICS Leaders would do well to replicate the cohesiveness of the BRICS academics in the articulation of their vision for creating sustainable economies, ecologies and societies. Similarly the promotion of cultural cooperation, establishing innovation linkages, sharing pathways to universal healthcare and medicine for all, strenghthening indigenous knowledge are all recommendations that are timely and appropriate.

The gradual transition process of BRICS becoming the global agenda setters has been one of the more exciting developments to watch and study. While sceptics may still dismiss the possibility of BRICS being “rule-makers”, it is unlikely that they will not influence “rule-making” processes. The experts at the forum were unambiguous in their vision for the grouping. While recognising that in many instances BRICS might eventually yield to sub optimal policy formulations due to national agendas and geo-political constraints, they were determined that the incubation period is over and now the bar must always be set high and the leaders must be ambitious. In the words of one of the delegates at the 4^th BRICS Academic Forum, BRICS have indeed created a “new geography of cooperation” and opportunities are boundless.

Samir Saran is Vice-President and Vivan Sharan an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. The foundation hosted the 4^th BRICS Academic Forum.

In the News, Water / Climate

De-securitise global climate change talks

Please find here the link to the original article.

Connecting climate change with security will defeat democracy in developing nations, said climate experts at a roundtable conference in New Delhi.

New Delhi: Linking climate change and conflict is not new. Even in the 70s, Western scholars like Richard Falk and Lester Brown started talking about the relation between environment and security. Environmental refugees and, wars over depleting resources became a common topic to talk about in the post Cold War period. It was an initiation to securitise climate change and other environmental issues.

Scholar Ole Waever had said, “Something becomes successfully securitised when it is cast as an existential threat that justifies an extraordinary (usually military) response.” On and off, climate change is being observed as a bigger threat to security than nondemocratic regimes, relative power and a conflict-ridden history, that can act as an ‘excuse’ for military response, fear experts.

Climate change is a serious issue that requires consideration to ensure water, energy and food security, particularly in the South Asian region, but it should not be seen as a basis that will lead to security dilemmas, asserted panellists at a roundtable discussion, ‘India’s vulnerability to climate change: The security implication’, organised by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) on February 15, 2012 in New Delhi.

“We live in globalised world. We are interconnected. What happens in one part affects us,” said Admiral Neil Morisetti, UK envoy on Climate and Energy Security. He cited the growing perception of ‘climate change as a stress multiplier’ amongst the Western world and endorsed the idea of incorporating international perspectives on climate issues in the national security strategies.

Highlighting the reasons behind the success of the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan, Ramaswamy Iyer, Former Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources said, “Despite wars, nothing has happened to the Indus Water Treaty because it’s a simple treaty and has been insulated from political and military interferences.” Citing examples from the treaty, Iyer denounced the idea of securitisation of climate change and the implications of giving a ‘security angle’ to key issues related to environment and natural resources management.

“Melting ice is not as big a problem for India, as sinking rivers is,” said Mukul Sanwal, former coordinator UNFCCC. Sanwal presented a different perspective over traditional ways of evaluating climate change impacts. According to him, elements of societal change, growing Asian markets and changing trade routes should be taken into account while carrying out climate change assessments. He also emphasised that climate change might encourage countries for greater cooperation rather than act as a threat multiplier.

Samir Saran, Vice President, ORF, recommended that in order to disconnect security and climate change, research and development on climate change should not be carried out with defence institutions. He added that additional grants to security divisions are unnecessary when it comes to tackling climate change. Developing nations already have a strong military presence and securitising environmental issues would defeat democracy in such regions. Therefore, de-securitisation of climate change is imperative for peaceful relations between the countries.

In the News, Water / Climate

BSE-GREENEX to Promote Green Investments in India: Think to Sustain Website

Please find here the link to the original article.

The BSE-GREENEX is designed to promote ‘green’ investing mindset among investors and assesses corporate on quantitative metrics for carbon performance.

Mumbai – Indian markets witnessed the launch of the first-ever live carbon index, BSE-GREENEX, at the hands of Dr. (Shri) M. Veerappa Moily, Hon’ble Minister of Corporate Affairs, Government of India at BSE on February 22.

BSE Ltd. (Formerly Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.) in association with gTrade (supported by GIZ) and promoted byFederal Republic of Germany, Observer Research Foundation and IIM Ahmedabad) has constructed BSE-GREENEX – designed specifically to promote green investing, with emphasis on financial performance and long term viability of companies. It is based upon purely quantitative and objective performance signals to assess carbon performance. BSE-GREENEX includes top 20 companies based on greenhouse gas numbers, free float market capitalization and turnover.

In keeping with BSE’s efforts to create fund friendly Indices, it is the third Index which is calculated based on the capping methodology. This Index will be helpful to asset managers for creation of various products, to help investors to invest in the green theme of India. BSE-GREENEX is expected to have a feedback effect on companies’ reputation. It will help the Government to gauge policy implementation and acceptance with regard to energy usage and efficiency measures, as the market follows an efficient signaling mechanism which adjusts positively or negatively to any news/policy shifts.

At the launch ceremony at BSE, Dr. (Shri) M. Veerappa Moily, Hon’ble Minister of Corporate Affairs, said, “It is my belief that companies and investors in developing countries like India, need to recognize the value created by corporations through the efficient and sensible use of energy. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has been very active in this regard. I am delighted to be here at the launch of BSE-GREENEX that lists companies that are able to marry financial performance and carbon efficiency. I feel that this Index’s objectivity will be its strength and the differentiator.”

Shri Madhu Kannan, MD & CEO, BSE, stated, “India is in a unique position to create a low-carbon green economy. So far India has focused on the fiscal aspect of economic growth. Now, it’s time we think about the environmental aspects of growth also. I am delighted that BSE in keeping with its tradition of innovation is today launching a carbon index – the ‘BSE-GREENEX. BSE will continue to contribute in full measure towards the Ministry of Corporate Affairs efforts of green and sustainable development in India Inc.”

Shri Rajiv Agarwal, whole time member, SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India), Shri Sunjoy Joshi, Director, ORF (Observer Research Foundation), Prof. (Shri) Amit Garg, IIM Ahmedabad and Shri Samir Saran, Chairman, gTrade, were also present at the launch and spoke on the subject.

For more information about the Index, do check the following link:

http://www.bseindia.com/about/abindices/Carbon.asp

Source: BSE.

BRICS

4th BRICS Academic Forum: Recommendations to the 4th BRICS Leaders Summit in New Delhi

Please download here the full document: Forum Declaration Final

March 06, 2012, New Delhi: The 4^th BRICS Academic Forum comprising experts and scholars from the research and academic institutions of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met on March 4^th, 5^th and 6^th, 2012 in New Delhi. Given that the BRICS have covered significant ground from the first meeting of Leaders in Yekaterinburg, the Forum believes that they must seek and set concrete agendas for articulating a clear, bold and ambitious vision.

The theme for this year’s Forum, “Stability, Security and Growth”, represents the common aspirations of BRICS for strengthening progressive development trajectories and seeking transformations for optimal representation and participation in matters of global political, economic and financial governance. Sovereignity and International law serve as the fundamental principles for BRICS members in world affairs and these are prerequisites for ensuring stability, security and growth.

The imperative of economic growth cannot be substituted, and the Forum believes that BRICS must continue to create synergies for enhancing this growth through greater engagement with one another as well as with the rest of the world.

The Forum proposes the following recommendations to the BRICS Leaders for their consideration:

1) Given the state of the euro zone and the continued ripples created by the global financial crisis, greater emphasis must be given to creating frameworks for enabling viable and timely responses to both endogenous and exogenous financial shocks within and outside BRICS. To this end, a systematic approach must be articulated to respond to any further economic downturns in the global economy.

2) The BRICS nations must seek to create institutions that enable viable alternatives for enhancing inclusive socio-economic development agenda within and outside BRICS. Such institutions must eventually seek to set global benchmarks for best practices and standards.

3) BRICS agreed to “strengthen financial cooperation” among their individual development banks at the Leaders Summit at Sanya in 2011. For furthering this objective, the Forum recommends studying the establishment and operational modalities of financial institutions such as a Development Bank and/or an Investment Fund that can assist in the development of BRICS and other developing countries.

4) BRICS must evolve as a platform for creating contextualised multilateral policies, and by mutual consultation develop viable and credible mechanisms to respond to local, regional and international political and social turbulence such as the events being witnessed in West Asia and North Africa.

5) The increasing involvement of non state actors and the dilution of the principle of non-interference are dual challenges that need to be met. Appropriate policies consistent with International Law need be be studied by BRICS academic institutions.

6) The BRICS are home to some of the most bio-diverse regions in the world and they must work together to preserve such diversity through exchanges and consultations. They also must share experiences of integrating natural assets with their national macro-economic policies.

7) As home to nearly half of the world’s population, BRICS have a responsibility to create pathways for sustainable development. BRICS could learn from policy successes as well as failures of the past from within and outside BRICS, and seek to implement policy solutions for sustainable development. In this context BRICS must bring to the fore inclusive growth and equitable development as the central narrative at global fora such as Rio+20.

8) BRICS must study the role of financial and non-financial policy instruments in promoting innovation, strengthening University-Industry linkages and evolving TRIPS compatible IPR policies.

9) The BRICS nations have a responsibility to respond to the increase in terrorist activities, illicit narcotics trade, money laundering, human trafficking and other new challenges. They must work together to neutralise the threats posed to each of them by sharing resources and information where appropriate, and through collaboration between relevant institutions in the member countries.

10) The Forum noted that a website has already been created by the Indian coordinator on BRICS issues. This could be further evolved into a virtual platform for the academic community for dissemination of developments, research and ideas. The Forum also suggests that the academic community and governments must work towards enhancing visibility of BRICS in their own countries and create an identifiable brand value.

11) Recent trends have shown that the BRICS are still very vulnerable to food and commodity price volatility. This, in turn, has exposed gaps in existing market policies and regulations as well as highlighted the imperative of resource efficiency. The BRICS should increase intra-BRICS cooperation in order to provide stable economic anchors for price volatility while simultaneously enhancing efficiency of resource use through better management, standards and technologies.

12) Urbanization is both a common challenge and an opportunity for BRICS. Additional capability and capacity building within urban agglomerations must be prioritized through sharing knowledge, policies and skills. Key actionable areas need to include infrastructure development, investments in mass transport, and programmes to enable social transformation.

13) The BRICS members must study the efficacy of their individual education policies and policies on Affirmative Action in promoting Inclusive growth. Documenting and sharing related outcomes could prove mutually beneficial. As a first step each of the member countries could use the Internet-based platform for distance learning about one another’s history and socio-economic development.

14) Cultural cooperation and connectivity between BRICS countries should be promoted. Instituting scholarships to promote student exchange between BRICS and creation of platform for dialogue and interface between representatives from legislative bodies, political parties and young leaders of the member nations could complement such efforts.

15) The BRICS are replete with instances and examples of innovative technologies, policies and practices. They must create linkages and institutions to share such learning, in order to promote economic growth and human development. An exchange programme of scholars, experts and business leaders in the area of innovation and entrepreneurship would present a good opportunity to enable this. In this context diversified linkages could be established among the business schools and other institutions of the five countries.

16) BRICS experts must undertake a thorough assessment of indigenous knowledge and practices to deal with common challenges such as eco-friendly agricultural practices, efficient water use, disaster management and other humanitarian issues.

17) BRICS need to collaborate on the realization of the ideal of ‘universal healthcare and medicines for all’. They must enable sharing of policies, practices, standards and experiences on public healthcare and create a community of healthcare professionals across BRICS. It is also suggested that the members must collaborate in strengthening the understanding and dissemination of traditional medicines and therapeutic practices. BRICS members must also coordinate and cooperate in international fora such as the WTO and work towards the effective transformation of WHO programmes.

The BRICS academic institutions and governments must share their hosting experiences from the annual Academic Forums and Summits in order to make successive interactions more productive and efficient.

BRICS engagements must be increased in range and frequency. To this end a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between BRICS coordinating research institutions. BRICS must explore and make use of such avenues and partnerships among member countries.

The BRICS Academic Forum wishes the Indian government the very best for hosting the 4^th BRICS Leaders Summit and is confident that the Forum’s recommendations will be considered.

The Forum appreciates the warm hospitality and expresses a hearty thank you to the Observer Research Foundation for all arrangements.

The Forum looks forward to the next meeting of academics in 2013, to be held in South Africa and they will continue their active engagement and offer full support to the organisers.

BRICS

4th BRICS Academic Forum, New Delhi, March 4-6 2012 on “Security, Stability and Growth”

Please download here the entire program of the conference: 4th BRICS Academic Forum_03-03-12
Please download here the official invitation: Inaugural invitation

The BRICS nations are experiencing a unique set of circumstances in their socioeconomic
and political evolution. The debates that dominate the discourse
within each of the BRICS nations today, whether on traditional security or nontraditional
security, are linked to the challenges that confront the global community
today. This offers an interesting opportunity and a matrix with multiple possibilities
to cooperate, share and work together.

While it is always simplistic to attempt to capture the broad and rich arena that
current developments offer the BRICS nations to collaborate on, there are inherent
advantages in viewing the contemporary and evolving challenges and aspirations
of the BRICS nations, through the prism of “Stability, Security and Growth”. Stability
from financial shocks, governance failures within the BRICS and globally, from
erratic demand cycles for exports and resources and from systemic contagious
failures in the global financial markets. Security of access to means of sustenance,
basic infrastructure (health, sanitation, education), availability and equity of
opportunities for individuals across social classes, religions and gender; across
regions, communities and security of development space and the environment.
Growth – through new markets and innovations in appropriate technologies; are
common themes that should be addressed and discussed by the BRICS nations,
each of which is in transition and each of which is committed to advance their
economies, capabilities and the daily lives of their peoples.

In order to effectively work with the “Stability Security and Growth” framework,
BRICS need to address four fundamental issues that will define and shape the
socio-economic and political landscape over the course of this decade. They
include – strengthening institutions and institutional capacities to equip international
frameworks with suitably resilient response mechanisms in this age of uncertainty;
sharing concerns about sustainable development in order to live up to the
collective responsibilities of BRICS nations; sharing practices and experiences to
learn and respond to the immense socio-economic challenges within and outside
BRICS nations; and finally exploring the innovation landscape through promotion
and expansion of new avenues for cooperation and growth to enhance lives and
livelihoods, as well as respond to the ethical and development imperatives that
demand urgent attention. These themes are reflected in the agenda.

In the News

“Trade Unions do not represent the poor”, says Samir Saran

The National
February 28, 2012
Please find here the link to the original article.

NEW DELHI // Millions of government workers are set to strike today in one of the biggest industrial actions in Indian history. All 11 of India’s central trade unions – each with at least 400,000 members – will take part.

They will be joined by about 5,000 local unions, after last-minute appeals for talks with the government were rejected over the weekend. The strikes will hit every sector of the government, including state-run banks, energy and telecom companies and the civil service, but will not include the railways.

The unions say they are protesting against rising prices, privatisation of state-run companies and the widespread violation of workers’ rights. “The policies of liberalisation over the past 20 years have made workers poorer in real terms and led to extreme disparities of wealth,” said Tapan Sen, general secretary of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions. “The workers are creating all the profit but are treated like beasts. There is a resentment and anger churning at the ground level that has created the atmosphere for these strikes.”

The display of unity among the unions – whose affiliations stretch across the political spectrum – reflects their desire to regain the power they held during the years of militant labour activity in the 1970s and 1980s. “The traditional trade unions in this country came out of the manufacturing sector,” said Bibek Debroy, an economist with the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi think tank.

“Their membership is quite old and losing relevance compared with local unions in the services and rural sector. They are looking for a peg to re-establish their identity and influence.” Many question how relevant the unions can be in a country where nine out of 10 workers are in the informal sector, with no job security or possibility of union representation.

“It’s laughable for these unions to say they represent the poor,” said Samir Saran, the vice president of the Observer Research Foundation, another Delhi think tank. “Members of trade unions have formal jobs. They are far better looked after than the majority of workers in this country.

“The reality is they represent a very organised political force from the past that wants to reassert itself.” The strike offers a chance for some of the country’s most oppressed workers to protest very real issues. In a developing state such as Chhattisgarh, for instance, which has seen a huge influx of energy companies, mines and manufacturing plants in recent years, small unions are struggling for the most basic rights.

“Workers here are attacked by thugs or thrown in jail on false charges if they try to set up a union,” said Bansi Sahu, of the Chhattisgarh Engineering Workers Union. “Land is taken from farmers to build a power plant and then the jobs are given to people from other states because the owners don’t want local communities protesting against the low wages and terrible safety conditions.”

In India, desperate levels of poverty often force workers into a grudging acceptance of exploitative labour practices. The one-day stoppage comes at a difficult time for the government, which has been rocked by corruption scandals and has struggled to contain inflation, which was more than 9 per cent for the first 11 months of 2011 and only recently moderated to about 6.5 per cent.

“The danger for the government is not the strike itself, but whether it becomes fashionable,” said Mr Saran. “Like we saw with the anti-corruption movement last year, these agitations can have a spiralling effect. “The unions smell blood. If even one of their demands resonates in one or two of the provinces and gets taken up by opposition parties, then suddenly the government could have a serious problem on its hands.”

In the News

BSE-Greenex, the 25th dynamic index on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), is being unveiled.

On Wednesday, BSE-Greenex, the 25th dynamic index on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), is being unveiled. Besides the BSE, Greenex will be run by gTrade Carbon Ex Ratings Services Private Limited (gTrade; http://www.g-trade.in), the structure involving Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad researchers, think-tank Observor Research Foundation, and private investors.

by Rohit Bansal, Daily Pioneer
Please find here the link to the original article.
Please find here the entire media package of the launch of g-trade: g-trade media package

Does India Inc need to be told its ‘carbon performance’ based on quantitative, performance-based criteria? “Yes,” is the simple answer. An economy of our size and aspiration needs to green flag by way of an inclusive market-based mechanism. If I may go a step further, large business entities in India need to offer themselves for deeper probing, way beyond mandatory disclosures. A new index is merely a way to harmonise and discipline.

Green ethos is a tool of soft diplomacy. It interests global industries, investors and Governments. That said, moving beyond tokenism, printing an annual report of recycled paper being the cliche, makes real green flagging a pain that those who sit on the BSE100 must bear. I did some checks on whether Greenex is treading on territory already covered by global indices. It is not (links** to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the S&P Environment, Social and Governance Index and the FTSE4Good Index are flagged below). Its basis, as per gTrade chairman Samir Saran, a London School of Economics alum, is publicly-disclosed energy and financial data, not subjective parameters. With this, Saran aims to promote sustainable investing in India. His is a multi-pronged approach of increasing investor awareness, advocating progressive regulatory reform, and targeting energy intensive industrial sectors. “gTrade seeks ethical investments in green technologies and follows a first of its kind business model, and aims to launch ethical financial products in the carbon markets,” he says.

With an interest in nine sectors, pharma and biotech, steel, cement and cement products, fertilisers and agri chemicals, textiles, financial services, utilities, machinery, and oil and gas, is gTrade is aiming to compare energy guzzlers within, say, cement or steel, as also inter se with, say, financial services. Here trust evoked by IIM-A may be crucial. Sector-specific proprietary algorithms must sensibly compare energy efficiency performance of various companies/sectors.

gTrade will employ index constituent weight capping. Index constituent weights will be capped at 6 per cent during dynamic rebalancing, in an effort to increase the diversification within the index and ensure greater compliance with international regulatory and statutory investment guidelines.

Greenex’s nirvana lies in providing a tool for use by “green” retail and institutional investors to track the performance of India’s largest and most liquid, energy efficient stocks. Also, license beyond familiar territory and help in the development of green financial products including mutual funds, ETFs and structured products.

How the “winners” are incentivised might determine the success of green flagging. I include here, how the “losers” are punished. Social media activists must watch this space. You, not just gTrade, drive social expectation. Your questions will keep India Inc mindful of their social contract, in the instant case with green flagging.

BRICS, Columns/Op-Eds

Article in “Russia and India Report”: Navigating the trust deficit

by Samir Saran and Jaibal Naduvath
February 17th, 2012

Please find here the original article

At the 17^th round of the Indo-Russian Inter-governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Technological, Scientific and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC-TEC) held in November last year, the two governments agreed to set up an investment fund with public-private partnership to finance projects in the two countries. Barely a month later, after almost 18 years of negotiations, Russia was formally invited to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, has until June of this year to ratify the accession agreement. Beyond reducing tariff barriers and eliminating non-tariff barriers, accession to WTO is also expected to reduce government interference in business, a key pre-condition for free enterprise. Russia’s evolving economy has been witness and victim to continued government interventions.

Nevertheless, given the impending WTO accession, the India-Russia joint investment fund has managed to get its timing right. Current India-Russia bilateral trade, estimated at around USD 9 billion, is admittedly far below its potential. Trade promotion initiatives such as this investment fund, a possible Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with the Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan Customs Union combined with the business confidence the WTO accession would inspire, is expected to double bilateral trade to USD 20 billion by 2015, an ambitious, though very achievable feat. With a Price to Earning (P/E) ratio of 6, compared to India’s 14, China’s 15 and Brazil’s 8.5, Russia’s market is attractively priced amongst the emerging markets with traditional industries such as oil and gas, metals and minerals remaining hugely undervalued.

Despite warm bilateral ties, and close political engagement and co-operation extending well over 55 years, India-Russia trade has rarely managed to go beyond the legacy confines of defense equipment, space, energy, metals and minerals, and, commodities, even while, ironically, both countries have independently managed to very successfully leverage new vistas of opportunity in economies they stood together against for a better part of the 20^th century. Russia-European Union (EU) trade in 2010, for instance, stood at around USD 191 billion, with the bloc accounting for over 47% of Russia’s total trade turnover, representing a three-fold increase in just ten years. On the other hand, India-EU trade has grown to USD 107 billion this year and is expected to double in two years on the back of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) currently being negotiated. Compared to this, India-Russia bilateral trade of around USD 9 billion today pales in significance even though it represents a quantum leap from about USD 3 billion in 2006-07.

Russia-India two-way trade and investment has rarely ventured beyond government-controlled domains, which are also accompanied with government-backed guarantees of some kind. Russia’s active participation in several military, aerospace and nuclear projects in India and Indian investment in Russia’s energy sector and preferred trade in controlled commodities are part of this broader trend. But, the true test of any meaningful business relationship lies in the unmitigated ability of private enterprise on either side to confidently engage, invest and gain from each other’s economies, outside the security of sovereign assurance, even if notional. This is not so in the case of Indo-Russian trade.

Russia, of course, dominates the Indian defense sector and is comfortable navigating through Indian officialdom, which still retains much of its controlled economy character from the 70s and 80s. However, this may not remain the case for long. Under greater media scrutiny and public glare, the defense relationship will need to become far more efficient in terms of reliability, time lines and price points, else Russian dominance in the sector could be potentially challenged. Further, as the offset policy starts playing out and thereafter as the Indian private sector becomes engaged in defense production and R&D, Russia may no longer be a competitive player in this segment. To really be a beneficiary of India’s transformation over the coming 2 decades, Russia needs to expand its portfolio by diversifying into the arenas of industry and infrastructure in India. In doing so, its ability to confront India’s dynamic and loud democracy, and an increasingly uncompromising civil society will be as severely tested as its ability to navigate the country’s highly regulated business terrain arising from complex land use norms, environment clearances, and fiscal regimes, all of which have shown to evolve over time.

On the other hand, Russia offers India minerals and land, besides a huge market for software, services, value added goods and consumables. The resource sector in Russia, though, continues to be dominated and overwhelmed by its government with significant self-interest. Agriculture and land based activities too would be prone to similar dynamics and one can expect Indian private sector’s trepidations to be strong on investing in either. Apart from large Public Sector Companies and select large Indian Multi National Corporations, it is unlikely that Indian private sector will invest in Russia, despite undervaluation and potential for attractive return. Indian businesses’ traditional risk aversion is demonstrated by flight of capital to low return economies of the Atlantic that have corresponding low risk political ecosystems as well.

When Indian businesses consider making investments in Russia, they still seem daunted by perceptions constructed by imagery of the powerful and manipulative oligarchy, political nepotism and uncertainty, and seemingly poor judicial and legal recourse frameworks. Fears to do business in Russia have been hyped by experiences of companies such as ExxonMobil, Total and Shell in Russian Oil Sector, which were divested of their interests by Russian political class in a manner that was viewed as ad-hoc, if not vindictive. This imagination has often resulted in investments by Indian entrepreneurs being channeled into markets such as UK, EU and US, which are far more taut than Russia in terms of economic opportunity.

Ironically, Russian investors feel the same way towards India, drawing from a regular narrative of chaotic democracy, policy inconsistency, political fickleness, and civil instability with commitment cycles perceived to not exceed the life of the dispensation in power. One of the collaterals of the 2G verdict of the Supreme Court, which saw the revocation of 21 of Sistema Shyam Telecom’s (SSTL) 22 telecommunications licenses, could be the flickering and faint Russian Interest in Indian business opportunity. Russia’s USD 28 billion telecom to tourism conglomerate, Sistema JSFC, operating in India through its subsidiary MTS, had invested USD $2.5 billion over the past three years into the project, in arguably, the largest private sector intervention by a Russian company in India’s new economy to date. Further, Russian state owned Federal Agency for State Property Management acquired a 17.4% stake in SSTL by investing a hefty $600 million just last year. Fortunately, there is a growing business constituency, which views such re-calibrations as an inevitable part of polity evolution, but nonetheless the experience of Sistema, which may see itself as a victim of judicial overreach as some argue, could well define Russia’s appetite for India’s growth story.

Russia’s accession to WTO this summer and the consequent abolishment of tariff and non-tariff barriers will heighten global interest in Russia. Pro-investment initiatives such as the proposed joint public–private investment fund combined with demonstrable political and economic will on both sides should result in heightened interest in private enterprise on both sides to explore and invest in each other. Multi-billion dollar National Minerals Development Corporation – Severstal Joint Venture steel project in Odisha or Indian companies negotiating long-term agreements for supply of diamonds from Russia are positive signs for medium to long term economic engagement between the two countries.

BRICS, Columns/Op-Eds

Article in “The Hindu”: Giving BRICS a non-western vision.

by Samir Saran and Vivan Sharan
New Delhi, February 14, 2012

Please find here the link to the original article.

India is all set to host the Fourth BRICS Summit in March this year. The journey from Yekaterinburg to New Delhi has demonstrated that the political will amongst member nations to sustain this contemporary multilateral process is strong. Along the way South Africa has been welcomed into the original “group of four.” Yet, the challenge for BRICS has always been, and continues to be, the articulation of a common vision. After all, the member nations are at different stages of political and socio-economic development. While some have evolved economically and militarily they are yet to succeed in enabling plural governance structures, while others who represent modern democratic societies are being challenged domestically by inequalities and faultlines created by caste, colour, religion and history. The BRICS nations do have a historic opportunity — post the global financial crisis and the recent upheavals in various parts of the world — to create or rebuild a new sustainable and relevant multilateral platform, one that seeks to serve the interests of the emerging world as well as manage the great shift from the west to the east.

Way forward

Indeed, two out of the five economies in BRICS, China and Russia, have already emerged, and are veritable heavyweights in any relevant global political and economic discourse. Why then should BRICS depend on sluggish multilateral channels such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), or try to imbibe didactic, non-pragmatic western perspectives on issues purely of common interest? It is amusing to be offered solutions to poverty and inequality, bottom of the pyramid health models, low cost housing options, education delivery, energy and water provision, et al by the wise men from organisations and institutions of the Atlantic countries. When was the last time they experienced poverty of this scale, had energy deficiency at this level and suffered from health challenges that are as enormous? The responses to the challenges faced by the developing world reside in solutions that have been fashioned organically.

BRICS could systematically create frameworks offering policy and development options for the emerging and developing world and assume the role of a veritable policy think tank for such nations, very similar to the role played by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the 20th-century world. Thus BRICS must create its own research and policy secretariat (for want of a better term) for addressing specific issues such as trade and market reforms, urbanisation challenges, regional crises responses, universal healthcare, food security and sustainable development (many of these issues are being discussed year at the BRICS Academic Forum in March).

Non-traditional security

The OECD’s stated mission is to “promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.” Although the BRICS nations account for a fourth of global GDP and represent over 40 per cent of the total global population, none of them are OECD members as yet; instead what they have is “enhanced engagement” with the OECD. The BRICS nations have already created a viable platform for “enhanced engagement” with each other through the institutionalisation of the annual Leader’s summit, preceded by an Academic Forum of BRICS research institutions and a Financial Forum of development banks (and this year, a newly instituted Economic Research Group will focus on specific economic issues). The dominant discourses within each of the BRICS nations today are centred on non-traditional security, which can be efficiently addressed through collective market based response mechanisms.

Despite intra-BRICS trade volumes rising exponentially over the past decade, there are few instances of actual financial integration within the consortium (aside from the case of Russia and China starting bilateral currency trading last year). A useful first step to enable this would be to institute a code of liberalisation of capital movements across the five countries, as a modern day parallel to the 1961 OECD code with an equivalent mandate. In the current environment of global economic uncertainty, multinational corporations are perhaps the most adaptable and profitable drivers of economic growth. Therefore, at the outset, the creation of favourable policies for multinationals to conduct business across BRICS would be well justified. Moreover, just as the OECD has a comprehensive set of guidelines that set benchmarks for various economic activities, from testing standards for agricultural goods to corporate governance of state owned enterprises, the BRICS nations could create their own guidelines on the best practices and standards within the consortium.

Finally, within the BRICS nations, there are both import and export centric economies. This provides an excellent template for a realistic multilateral negotiating platform where obdurate self serving bargaining positions are natural starting points. The stalled discussions at the Doha Round of the WTO are an example of the difficulties of consensus building. Since the BRICS nations are already addressing a plethora of issues covered by the Doha Round, they are well placed to move ahead of it, and resolve mutual positions and common concerns.

What started as an investment pitch by Goldman Sachs (BRIC) has evolved into a useful multilateral instrument, for the BRICS nations. BRICS must now move on from being a grouping of individual nations, discussing agendas, to becoming a “go-to” institution for setting regional and global agendas. The essence and ethos of such an institution must in turn, flow from the inorganic prism of stability, security and growth for all. Stability from business cycles and financial governance failures, security from traditional and non-traditional threats posed to humans and the environment, and unbiased growth and prosperity are common aspirations for all BRICS nations, and they must be achieved and delivered from within. The Fourth BRICS Academic Forum will attempt to address these imperatives.

Samir Saran is Vice-President and Vivan Sharan an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. The foundation is the Indian coordinator for the Fourth BRICS Academic Forum on March 5-6, in New Delhi.

Books / Papers, Water / Climate

ORF Report “Re-imagining the Indus”

Please find here the link http://orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/documents/other/indus.PDF to our comprehensive report on the “Indus”, the associated treaty, the emergent rhetoric and the reality of people whose lives are inseparable from the river and their traditional and contemporary water management practices.

It is perhaps the most comprehensive effort that captures essential narratives and historical evidence from both sides of the border, that is unable to divide the organic and indivisible river basin.

Co-produced with the LUMS, Lahore with the support of the DFID, this research led by ORF scholar Lydia Powell is certain to offer a pragmatic insight on the debate and the way ahead for the two countries and more importantly for the one people of the river Indus.

I had the pleasure of writing one section of this report.